Grado de asociación de carga parasitaria que existe entre la Cryptosporidium

Four pieces of data stood out from the summary of the use of theCANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis in the different genres when analysed according to the date and geographical source of the texts. The most striking piece of data was the similar pattern of use of theCANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in both the northern and Tuscan

texts. No genres other than LIR and NARR VERSI attested the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis in the same way in both areas. The CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was

attested in Tuscan and Northern Italian poetry from the earliest texts from each area, which were dated 1246 in Tuscany and 1190 in northern Italy.422In poetry, then, there appeared to be no geographical or temporal conditioning to the use of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The second

significant piece of data was that, with the exception of two texts by Brunetto Latini, the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was not attested until 1300 in Tuscan prose

texts.423 In northern Italian prose texts, however, the form was attested in texts dated as early as 1200 and 1210.424 This suggested that the sources of the CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis in prose texts were different for the two areas. The difference in use of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in non-literary texts in each area was also an important contributing factor to the explanation to be put forward here: the periphrasis only occurred in literary Tuscan genres, whereas in the northern Italo- Romance dialects, the periphrasis was attested in both literary and sub-literary genres. Finally, it was necessary to note particularly the time periods in which theCANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was attested in the two areas. In the various Tuscan literary genres, the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis appeared for short periods of the fourteenth century, such as 1330 to 1374 for the CRON texts. In contrast, the rate of attestation of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the different genres in the

422_{[Raimb. de Vaqueiras, Contrasto, c. 1190 (gen.)].}

It should be noted that theContrasto attests reflexes of both conditional periphrases, despite being a non-native Provençal poet.

Ruggieri d'Amici, [1246],Lo mio core che si stava(Maurizio Vitale, Poeti della prima scuola, Arona, Paideia, 1951, p. 184.) [Ruggieri d’Amici (ed. Vitale), XIII pm. (tosc.)].

423_{These texts were discussed in Chapter 5.4, in the Meta-Literature section of the written analysis.}

[Brunetto Latini, Rettorica, c. 1260-61 (fior.)]. [$Sommetta, 1284-87 (fior.)$].

424 _{Anonimo, [1200], Proverbia que dicuntur super natura feminarum (Berlino, Deutsche} Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 390; Saibante)(Poeti del Duecento, a cura di Gianfranco Contini, Milano- Napoli, Ricciardi, 1960, t. I, pp. 521-55 [testo pp. 523-55].)

[Proverbia que dicuntur, XII u.q. (venez.)].)

Uguccione da Lodi, [1210],Libro(Poeti del Duecento, a cura di Gianfranco Contini, Milano-Napoli, Ricciardi, 1960, t. I, pp. 597-624 [testo pp. 600-624].) [Uguccione da Lodi, Libro, XIII in. (crem.)].

northern Italo-Romance dialects showed a slight tendency to increase over the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

The use of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis is, therefore, different in each of the

two areas. Given that the periphrasis was attested from an earlier stage in the northern Italo-Romance dialects, it is possible that the introduction of the form into the Tuscan dialects could merely be an instance of contact-based borrowing. Guazzelli’s research on the roots of lenition in the Tuscan dialects provides some circumstantial evidence to support this argument. She suggests that “la sonorizzazione non colpisce mai questi elementi morfologici […] ma si limita alla componente lessicale”, which shows that while contact phenomena did occur between the northern dialects and Tuscan, it did not take place at a morphological level.425This analysis is in agreement with work on the typology of borrowing which states that, unlike phonological or lexical elements, “inflectional morphology is hardest to borrow, because its component parts fit into a whole that is (relatively) small, self-contained, and highly organised”.426It is therefore unlikely that the introduction of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis into Tuscan was a simple case of proximity-based borrowing, especially since the form is in a clear minority, with only 541 attestations of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis compared to 2540 attestations of theCANTARE HABUIperiphrasis.

Instead of a geographical contact situation, the differences in the patterns of attestation of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in Tuscan suggest a more

complicated picture. The non-attestation of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the

practical Tuscan genres suggests that the paradigm was, or was perceived as, a literary form. Moreover, the different pattern of use of the periphrasis in the verse and prose texts, and the retention of the form in poetry throughout the fourteenth century, implies that the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was not just a literary form, but

primarily a poetic one. Additionally, theCANTARE HABUI periphrasis was not attested

in a Tuscan text LIR without concurrent attestations of the CANTARE HABEBAM

425 _{Francesca Guazzelli, ‘Alle origini della sonorizzazione delle occlusive sorde intervocaliche’,} L’Italia dialettale, 109 (1996), 7-88, (p. 39).

426

Sarah G. Thomason,Language Contact: An introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001), p. 69.

periphrasis until 1271.427 The CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis, however, was attested

alone in texts from the first Tuscan poem, dated 1246.428 Despite being a non-native form, theCANTARE HABEBAMparadigm was therefore the default paradigm for Tuscan

verse compositions. It is in the light of this situation that the simple borrowing hypothesis becomes unconvincing. The Tuscan use of the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis appeared only in literary texts, which was not the case for the northern Italo-Romance dialects where the paradigm was also attested in the sub-literary genres. Either the northern usage of the form was perceived in Tuscany as higher prestige than was in fact the case, or an alternative source was responsible for the Tuscan use of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis in verse.

Reflexes of the CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis with a desinence in–ia are attested in two spheres, the Provençal poets, and the Sicilian school, which, as noted in the Introduction, is now thought to have been influenced by the Provençal poets.429 It is not, therefore, coincidental, that the first attestation of the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis in Tuscan poetry is dated from 1246, coinciding with the beginnings of the Siculo-Tuscan school of poetry. It would appear, therefore that the source of the

CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in Tuscan is the result of Sicilian poetic influence, itself initially derived from Provençal. As Dante notes, “quia ipsum prosaycantes ab avientibus magis accipiunt et quia quod avietum est prosaycantibus permanere videtur exemplar, et non e converse”, it is probable that the use of the paradigm in poetry was extended analogically into literary texts as a prestige form, with the different genres

427 _{Anonimo, [1271], Ardente foco al core s'è aspreso (Firenze, Archivio di Stato, Carte di San} Gimignano, 202)(Arrigo Castellani, Saggi di linguistica e filologia italiana e romanza (1946-1976) t. II, Roma, Salerno Editrice, 1980, pp. 59-72 [testo a p. 69].) [Poes. an. sang., 1270-71 (1)].

428_{[Ruggieri d’Amici (ed. Vitale), XIII pm. (tosc.)].}

429 _{For more detailed information on the Provençal forms, which differ from the modern French}

conditional forms, see Grandgent, Smith and Bergin, and Bourciez.

C. H. Grandgent, An Outline of the Phonology and Morphology of Old Provençal, (Boston: Heath, 1905) p. 118.

Nathaniel B. Smith and Thomas G. Bergin, An Old Provençal Primer, (New York: Garland, 1984), pp. 146-7.

adopting and discarding the form at different points over the fourteenth century.430As the influence of the Sicilian and Siculo-Tuscan poets waned, the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis was eventually discarded in all prose literary texts, although it was retained in its original context, poetry, throughout the fourteenth century. The perception of the paradigm as a poetic form meant that it was never adopted into practical texts or into everyday speech.431

In the north, however, reflexes of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis were attested in

texts written before the Sicilian school of poets adopted the form. The source of the

CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the northern Italo-Romance dialects was not,

therefore, the same as the Tuscan source. More importantly, the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis was used in practical texts as well as literary texts, and the earliest attestations occurred in prose. These pieces of evidence imply that the route by which the paradigm was made available into the northern dialects was not solely literary. This suggests that the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was an example of geographically-based contact interference, and was introduced through the physical proximity of the northern Italo-Romance dialects to Provençal.432 The strong cultural

430_{Dante Alighieri,De Vulgari Eloquentia, ed. by Stephen Botterill, Cambridge Mediaeval Classics, 5}

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 47.

431_{Bentley’s assertion, noted in the Introduction, that the use of the conditional in Sicilian is gradually}

being eliminated seems to be an example of a similar process to that which occurred in Tuscany. The paradigm was also used in Sicily as a literary form, either native or non-native, but as the use of Sicilian for literary functions is eroded, the form is being replaced by lower prestige means of expressing hypotheticality which are also indigenous to the area.

Bentley, ‘Semantica e sintassi’, p. 164.

432 _{Maiden notes, in agreement with the authors cited in the Introduction to this thesis, that “the}

phonological development is such that in the vast majority of Italo-Romance dialects where [the CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis] appears, it simply cannot be an indigenous form but must, rather, be the result of diffusion from some external source”. The exceptions to this statement, as Rohlfs has suggested, are the dialects from Piedmont and Liguria where, on phonological grounds, it is possible that the reflexes of the paradigm with desinences in -ea/-evacould be indigenous. On this basis, it is reasonable to suppose that the Ligurian and Piedmontese use of the paradigm is not a contact phenomenon. Moreover, Maiden notes that the source of the -ia desinence is problematic, citing Rohlfs’s postulated Occitan source as the most convincing. The indigenous nature of these forms actually constitutes evidence for the Occitan/Provençal source, since the geographical contiguity suggests that the range of the form stretched into the extreme north-west of Italy, rather than being the

influences of the Troubadour poetry from the early thirteenth century onwards would also have played a part in the adoption of the Provençal forms into literary usage of the dialects of northern Italy.433 In the Veneto especially, a school of writing, described by Folena as “biografico-narrativo, embrionalmente critico e storiografico”, developed around the margins of the Provençal poets, would have reinforced the availability of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis in prose.434 It is possible, however,

that the higher rates of attestation of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the

northern verse texts, in line with the pattern of use shown in the Tuscan verse genres, could be attributed to the additional influence from the Sicilian school on the northern Italian poets.435

The explanation proffered here also accounts for the prima facie link between the genres attesting high levels of conditional use (both paradigms) and genres containing high levels of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in Tuscan. On the basis of this evidence, the link can only be described as a correlative relationship, not a causative one. Variation in conditional use according to genre is likely to be a cross-linguistic occurrence, linked to the hypotheticality needs of the different genres. The more literary a genre, the more likely it is to have a greater need to express hypotheticality, and thus a higher rate of conditional use. In contrast, the increased rate of attestation

unlikely result of contact over an isogloss coinciding with the modern political boundaries. This analysis is also in line with the conclusions drawn here, providing confirmation of the dual source suggested here to account for the introduction and retention of theCANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the north of Italy.

Martin Maiden, ‘Accomodating Synonomy: How some Italo-Romance verbs react to lexical and morphological borrowing’, inRethinking Languages in Contact: The case of Italian, ed. by Anna Laura Lepschy and Arturo Tosi (London: MHRA and Maney, 2009), p. 93.

433

Gianfranco Folena, ‘Tradizione e cultura trobadorica nelle corti e nelle città venete’, inStoria della Cultura Veneta, ed. by Gianfranco Folena, 10 vols (Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 1976), I, 453-562, (pp .453-5).

434_{Folena, pp. 455, 465-6.}

435 _{The higher rate of attestation of the}

CANTARE HABEBAM reflex in poetry in the northern Italian dialects suggests that Rohlfs is perhaps not entirely accurate when he suggests that “anche nel Settentrione, e già presso gli antichi poeti, il tipo in-iasi trova difficilmente da solo: solitamente è in compagnia dell’altro condizionale, formato con habui”. Additional research using information from the Access database would have the potential to confirm or disprove this statement.

of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in Tuscan literary genres was a language-

specific link and was sociolinguistically conditioned: the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis was perceived as being a high prestige, literary form, resulting in its use in literary genres in Tuscan. Conversely, in the northern dialects, theCANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis was not perceived as being a purely literary, high prestige form, and was available for use in practical texts as well as in literary ones.

This interpretation of the data was represented visually below in the form of a flow chart to be used in conjunction with the charts and written analyses. It shows the outcomes of the introduction and embedding of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis in

the Tuscan and northern Italo-Romance dialects, as a result of the two sets of processes operating in parallel. It should be noted that while the processes are ordered chronologically, the schema below does not imply a direct chronological relationship between each set of parallel processes at work in northern Italy and Tuscany. It is merely intended to provide an indication of the order of the parallel changes that took place in each region.

CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis (cantaria) in use in Provençal poetry.

/ \

No previous exposure tocantaria Northern dialects exposed to in Tuscany in C13th. cantariathrough geographical

proximity and Troubadour influence in C13th.

| |

Form not in use. Form already in use.

| |

No attestations ofcantaria Attestations ofcantariain

in Tuscan until 1246 northern texts from 1190 in

and only then in poetry poetry and prose.

| |

Cantariaintroduced into Sicilian school through Provençal influence |

Cantariaintroduced into poetry Assume increased use ofcantaria

in Tuscan dialects through influence in northern poetry through from Sicilian school. (1250 onwards) . influence of Sicilian school.

| |

Cantariaused in Tuscan in genres Cantariaused in northern

influenced by poetry – attested only dialects in all contexts, literary in literary texts not in practical texts. and practical.

Tuscan vernaculars do not adopt Cantariaalready in use in the

cantaria. Use of the form in prose northern vernaculars. Use of

diminishes and disappears. the form increases and becomes usual.

The eventual differences resulting from the different sources and prestige attributed to the forms can be seen in the modern dialect situations described below.